Oh yeah deffo! all stage managed by the looks of it!
Oh yeah deffo! all stage managed by the looks of it!So are we thinking this romantic Paris trip with wife and kids is a weird PR stunt...?
I think you're missing the joy of R&J's relationship dynamic. Judy was clearly trying to dissuade Richard from making a mess in their kitchen; I definitely got the feeling that she sees Richard as a distaster-ideas person where their home is concerned. Really glad I caught them today; cheered me up immensely. More Judy please!Oh dear, please don’t bring back richard and Judy..it’s just too cringey
Judy..it’s time to sit back and enjoy your time with your grandchildren
richard has just said ..shut up finnegan
argh..car crash tv
i wouldn’t advise any married couples to present a tv programme together..you have the whole marriage in front of you..when their mask slips
argh..Richards just said ..this is our marriage
i agree..it bet it’s hell in the finnegan / madeley household.
richard was desperately trying to keep the cleaning article on track..and Judy just looked as sick as a parrot ..while she rubbished everything that was said.
this is not meant as an ageist comment ..but it seems like richard has brought his mother to work...just seems like he’s got no one to look after her, so he’s brought her to work. She’s just been picking at her bare feet while waiting to get out of a golf buggy.
its quite sad actually
i think we need a richard and Judy separate thread..on why they should not be brought back to this morning...as much loved presenters..I think we should leave them in the past .
judge Rinder and Tricia..all the way
Exactly that was my point
Aw I like Richard and Judy. And Ruth and Eamonn. At least they are real even if they mess up a bit. Unlike those 2 'polished, false pair PS and HW.
I find them very relatableLove it when they bicker.
I'm catching up so apologies if this has been said but any organisation working with young people needs a safeguarding policy and/or social media policy - it might just be a section in the safeguarding policy. It would have a stipulation that contacting young people on social media is unacceptable. Some organisations do use social media to contact young people about their club, but it should be managed appropriately with more than 1 person having access to the account to check what is being said and other safeguards. Use of personal SM to contact young people should always be a no-go.You just reminded me of something. I asked my daughter's football coach recently if they'd contacted her directly to inform her about something (I wasn't concerned, was just checking) and they said no, absolutely not, as they're not allowed to contact the kids directly via social media, only through the parents. I don't quite know where I'm going with this, except to say that there SHOULD be something somewhere that at least gives these adults guidelines on what is acceptable or allowed. Like ITV's Code of Conduct I suppose. Ideally it should be illegal for a non-friend or family member adult to make contact with children (under 18) via social media with a private message.
.See, words like “must” have to be used sparingly in a thread like this. Otherwise I those who seek to denounce the whole thing as baseless speculation, have evidence for it. It’s 1+1 making 3.
That MM was still looking for somewhere to live af that time doesn’t in anyway imply PS was putting him up. That surely would be reckless and arrogant even for him? Maybe he was funding a hotel? But there’s not a scrap of evidence for any of it so no point undermining what you have so carefully collated.
Every now and then a poster seems to appear thinking they have the perfect defence to counter 9 threads of discussion, that no one else has mentioned, and that is that MM was 18 and over when he moved to London and worked on TM.... we know that. The majority of posters here agree there isn’t evidence for child abuse - there also isnt strong evidence of harassment or anything like that. That’s just where people’s minds go when they hear about a relationship like this, particularly a gay one unfortunately, and a super injunction.
What most people have been saying repeatedly, and what there is convicting evidenxe to support, is that an inappropriate relationship took place. Inappropriate because of the skewed balance of power between a famous presenter and the runner who owes him his job. Inappropriate because they should have had a working relationship, again existing on a clear hierarchy, where a veteran presenter shouldn’t be taking a professionally inexperienced runner out for dinner or to the NTA’s. There are so many reasons that’s inappropriate that are surely obvious.
The evidence of this sort of behaviour means I don’t think it even matters that much if they also were having sex. It’s quite possible, but also believable PS liked the attention and flattery from a much younger man (as someone said earlier, a product of his fame rather than charm or look). MM was doing well out of it too. So it seems slightly irrelevant whether the means where sexual when the ends (how they both benefitted) were the same. Especially since it wasn’t illegal. Of course it makes juicier gossip but I think it’s just as bad if they were ‘close friends’ - and clearly intimate on an emotional level.
About the injunction possibly being lifted, I think a judge can and will do it if they decide the story has leaked widely enough to be public knowledge meaning that the injunction is or will soon be pointless. Isn’t that what happened with the infamous Ryan giggs one ? Or was he named in parliament ? I seem to remember both somehow ...?
.And yes - we all think something is being hidden and what we imagine is being hidden is probably way more outrageous than the actual secret.
If that someone is Mathew McGreevy, that's going to look very suspicious and cause a lot of open speculation.If history repeats itself then the story will die down and suddenly someone will be found who committed "suicide" or in a "sexual drug fueled rampage"
Yes Paul Hollywood, doing that to his gorgeous wife. Just because he couldn't resist temptation of women being attracted to his fame and money, who wouldn't look at him twice if he wasn't on the TV.For me this has kind of gone full circle to what many of us were saying at the very beginning: regardless of exactly what he is hiding with the press gagging, super injunctions, posts deleted, sites closed down, there is clearly SOMETHING that PS doesn't want the general public to know - perhaps to protect the other people involved and his family as much as himself - BUT there is something, I think that much is pretty undeniable, in which case how can he continue with his role presenting TM and quizzing people on their lives and choices? It seems extremely likely that the something which he is trying hide would damage his own reputation, the squeaky clean, family man brand, in which case he shouldn't be employed in roles that require that persona, even if the details of the something don't ever come to light. I would personally like to see him retire from television, just leave quietly and get on with the rest of his life out of the limelight - except of course he can't bear to do that because being in the limelight is what he lives for (and how many 18 year old 'men' would be attracted to him if he wasn't on television?). Its not at all about him being gay... I feel the same about Paul Hollywood, I just can't look at his smug face now and don't think he should be on Bake Off, a family show, when everyone knows what he's like. Its basically saying its okay to have affairs behind your wife's back and treat people with much less power than you in a controlling way. No, very wrong.
yes It isIs it possible to dm anyone on here?
Suspicions are quickly covered up by "his mental state" in the last few monthsIf that someone is Mathew McGreevy, that's going to look very suspicious and cause a lot of open speculation.
They’re nice enough blokes but don’t get why they always get these Golden Milkshake deals and always win that ruddy award at the NTA’s!Richard asking ant and dec about being the face of the channel and itv executives - awkward looks
unfortunate autocorrectthey always get these Golden Milkshake deals
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?